| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "'Jim C(dot) Nasby'" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |
| Date: | 2006-08-24 13:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | 3881.1156427890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I think there is a reasonable case for saying that a manual vacuum could
> hint pgstat to create the entry instead.
The problem with that is that a simple "VACUUM;" would force pgstat to
populate its entire hashtable. Which more or less defeats the idea of
not wasting table space on inactive tables --- and given the way the
reporting-file mechanism works, there's definitely an incentive to not
make the table bigger than it has to be.
It wouldn't be so bad if pgstat had a mechanism for aging out unused
table entries ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-24 14:01:05 | Re: invalid byte sequence ? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-08-24 13:45:23 | Re: invalid byte sequence ? |